<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html><head><title>Re[2]: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update</title> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1251"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css"> <style type="text/css"></style> </head> <body> salut Riccardo, I do not totally agree with you.. and I explain why. you are talking about the case in the future.. but I give an actual example.. 2 years ago my company has an allocated prefix from a LIR. After 1 year we asked additional resources and had a negative response because of the RIPE Policy limitations. after the next year the situation was the same and to receive an additional prefix we became LIR. Now, pls answer... why to not permit transfer from the old LIR to the new one if they agree on it and do it for ensure the new LIR in continuity of the prefix use (all this with condition that this prefix was allocated by the old LIR when the new LIR has the status OTHER). Best Regards, - Sergiu IANCIUC SC ITNS.NET SRL MD-2068, Moldova or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1 tel.: +373 22 877 877 fax : +373 22 44 11 73 mobile: +373 690 22 111 url: <a class=rvts6 href="http://www.itns.md">http://www.itns.md</a> Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to... Saturday, April 30, 2016, 8:33:49 AM, you wrote: <div><table border=0 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=2 style="background-color: #ffffff;"> <tr valign=top> <td width=1 style="background-color: #0000ff;"> </td> <td width=1062> Dear Sergiu, about your example and its eventual realtionship with the proposal 2015-05: Company X would have not limit in receive address space as described in transfert or allocation policies. The limit described in 2015-05 would be applied to the LIR that assigned space to Company X and, as described in your example, later transfered the space in Company X registry. This LIR is supposed to not need address space as it moved it outside its registry so it would not be able to request an additional /22 allocation from pool outside 185/8 standing on 2015-05 proposal On the other hand if Company X after its sing up as a new LIR after 18 months need more space and there is enough space outside 185/8 would be able to request an additional /22 standing on 2015-05 proposal. The LIR that offered the first /22 to Company X as "assigned resource" could also request an additional /22 allocation if its registry is holding less than a /20 IPv4. hope this help regards Riccardo Il 29/04/2016 10:38, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto: hello, PLS, take in consideration the situation Company X has a /22 from its LIR. The LIR can not offer more IPv4 spaces and the Company X becomes a LIR to satisfy its needs. Now, it is logical that the LIR (if agreed between these 2 LIRs) transfers the space allocated to the Company X (now the new LIR) AND THIS have to not be the part from the policy - "requirements, such as the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space before." What are you thinking about? Best Regards, - Sergiu IANCIUC SC ITNS.NET SRL MD-2068, Moldova or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1 tel.: +373 22 877 877 fax : +373 22 44 11 73 mobile: +373 690 22 111 url: <a class=rvts6 href="http://www.itns.md">http://www.itns.md</a> Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to... This is a forwarded message From: Marco Schmidt <a class=rvts6 href="mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net"><mschmidt@ripe.net></a> To: <a class=rvts6 href="mailto:ncc-announce@ripe.net">ncc-announce@ripe.net</a> Date: Friday, April 29, 2016, 11:18:23 AM Subject: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update ===8<==============Original message text=============== Dear colleagues, Here is our monthly overview of open policy proposals and their stage in the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please do so on the relevant working group mailing list. Proposals Open for Discussion: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria" Proposals Awaiting Input: 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" 2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy" Proposal Overviews: PROPOSAL: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria" OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The latest version of the proposal suggests several requirements, such as the LIR cannot hold more than a /20 IPv4, must document their IPv6 deployment and has not transferred any IPv4 address space before. STATUS: Discussion Phase WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: <a class=rvts6 href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a> DEADLINE: 13 May 2016 FULL PROPOSAL: <a class=rvts6 href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05</a> ===== The following proposals are awaiting input before they can go any further in the PDP. PROPOSAL: 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" OVERVIEW: Aims to create a single transfer policy with all relevant information on the transfer of Internet number resources, replacing text in several RIPE Policies. The proposal also introduces a 24-month holding period for IPv4 addresses and 16-bit ASNs after any change of holdership. RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point how the 24-month holding period for scarce resources will be applied. STATUS: Review Phase � Awaiting decision from working group chair FULL PROPOSAL: <a class=rvts6 href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04</a> PROPOSAL: 2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy" OVERVIEW: Aims for a mandatory abuse contact for Legacy Internet Resource holders in the RIPE Database. STATUS: Discussion Phase � Awaiting decision from proposer FULL PROPOSAL: <a class=rvts6 href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-01">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-01</a> The RIPE NCC provides an overview of current RIPE Policy Proposals on <a class=rvts6 href="http://www.ripe.net">www.ripe.net</a>:<a class=rvts6 href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals</a> We look forward to your involvement in the PDP. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt RIPE Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC ===8<===========End of original message text=========== -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: <a class=rvts6 href="mailto:rgori@wirem.net">rgori@wirem.net</a> Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: <a class=rvts6 href="https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943">https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943</a> <img width=472 height=189 alt="" hspace=1 vspace=1 src="cid:D7B27677.01D1A2C2.098793E1.46F66B69_csseditor"> WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to <a class=rvts6 href="mailto:info@wirem.net">info@wirem.net</a> Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) -------------------------------------------------------------------- </td> </tr> </table> </div> </body></html>